Rafa?l Carr? wrote:> That would need a special case for Linux x32 which is x86_64 with 32 > bits pointersIt won't be wrong for x32, just sub-optimal. Please feel free to suggest a way to detect x32. Erik -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Erik de Castro Lopo http://www.mega-nerd.com/
Le 29 d?c. 2015 20:31, "Erik de Castro Lopo" <mle+la at mega-nerd.com> a ?crit :> > Rafa?l Carr? wrote: > > > That would need a special case for Linux x32 which is x86_64 with 32 > > bits pointers > > It won't be wrong for x32, just sub-optimal. > > Please feel free to suggest a way to detect x32.
On 12/29/15 11:31 AM, Erik de Castro Lopo wrote:> Rafa?l Carr? wrote: > >> That would need a special case for Linux x32 which is x86_64 with 32 >> bits pointers > > It won't be wrong for x32, just sub-optimal. > > Please feel free to suggest a way to detect x32. >Shouldn't these tests be in configure and at worst x32 can be passed as target. Dave>
Rafa?l Carr? wrote:> From https://sourceware.org/glibc/wiki/x32 > > x86-64 C/C++ compiler predefines macro__LP64__ while x32 C/C++ compiler > predefines macro __ILP32__.What compiler defines these? GCC? Clang? The Intel compiler? Erik -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Erik de Castro Lopo http://www.mega-nerd.com/
Dave Yeo wrote:> Shouldn't these tests be in configure and at worst x32 can be passed as > target.Indeed! Erik -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Erik de Castro Lopo http://www.mega-nerd.com/